Expecting Moral Philosophers to be Reliable

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Are philosophers’ intuitions more reliable than philosophical novices’? Are we entitled to assume the superiority of philosophers’ intuitions just as we assume that experts in other domains have more reliable intuitions than novices? Ryberg raises some doubts and his arguments promise to undermine the expertise defence of intuition-use in philosophy once and for all. In this paper, I raise a number of objections to these arguments. I argue that philosophers receive sufficient feedback about the quality of their intuitions and that philosophers’ experience in philosophy plausibly affects their intuitions. Consequently, the type of argument Ryberg offers fails to undermine the expertise defence of intuition-use in philosophy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)205-220
Number of pages16
JournalDialectica
Volume69
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Jul 2015

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Moral philosophy
  • Moral epistemology
  • Moral expertise
  • Expertise
  • Philosophical methodology
  • Intuition
  • Intuitions
  • Philosophical methods
  • Metaphilosophy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Expecting Moral Philosophers to be Reliable'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this